So after (finally) getting the film on BluRay and watching it countless times, I can finally express my one disappointment with the film without fear of spoiling anybody.

As a Batman fan, I wish Bruce had died.

I simply feel that his sacrifice should have been genuine, because to me, Bruce cannot be separated from Batman, especially this portrayal of Bruce. His life was guided by the mission, and when we first see Bruce in TDKR, I could see it in his eyes that despite all the "other" circumstances of his self-imposed isolation, he was simply lost without Batman. For him to willingly sacrifice his life would have made this film as defining as The Dark Knight. If they had simply cut out Alfred's smile/nod and Bruce's smile/nod, and just left it at something catching Alfred's eye so that he looked at the audience, I think it would've been ambiguous enough without seemingly trying to be. This film needed finality for Bruce's story. That Blake would inherit the mantle I was fine with, but if Bruce is still alive there's no sense of finality.

I love this film, don't get me wrong. And the more I watch it the more I love it, but Bruce needed to die. The ultimate "rising" if you will. Otherwise, Alfred's tears were shed for nothing.

Couldn't feel more differently. The whole film is built around the premise of Bruce finding the will to live. To have him come to that realization, only for him to die anyway seems counterproductive to what the movie was trying to achieve with Bruce's arc. The point is a hero's death would have been the easy way out for Bruce. That's what he had to rise above.

Yes, this is an excellent point. Almost every criticism I've read or heard from friends contains those words - "Batman would never do that." Well, he did. The entirety of TDK built up to those last few moments, when Batman realized he simply couldn't be the hero he wanted to be for Gotham. He decided his presence was only causing more problems, epitomized by the Joker's rise and Harvey's fall, and that the best he could do was to take the blame and preserve the mission Harvey had begun.

Yup. And the negative mindset some people had going in simply prevented them for experiencing the movie as it should have. We all had ideas for what might happen in the film, but many were quite resolute in what SHOULD happen. That's why I always come back to the Blake is Robin discussion. There was so much anger and vitriol on these forums at the mere suggestion of Blake being a Robin-type figure. Many of these people simply refused to accept what was kind of obvious to some others. It made perfect sense for the story. But what made sense for the story took a backseat to what people felt should happen based on preconceived notions or favorite Batman stories.

Then of course the movie came out and people were angry that it didn't end the way they envisioned. This spread to nitpicking various details of the film. I avoided these threads for a couple months because every time someone explained or refuted certain criticisms, others lashed out at them as if their right to complain had been infringed.

One example was people complaining that Batman had killed the driver of the truck with the bomb (just before it crashes on the level below). "Batman would never kill." Well, if he's going after some bank robbers, no. But when there's a bomb set to detonate in a matter of minutes, Batman had to stop the truck at all costs. The "no killing" of one man takes a backseat to saving millions of lives. I don't see how this would even be a point of discussion. That's just one example of the many, many nitpicks and silly complaints that proliferated as people had to find every possible way to rationalize why they didn't like the film.

TDK was the best live action Batman to date. It featured the best live action depiction of the Joker, Batman's ultimate nemesis. After TDK we were all rightfully blown away. At this moment I think that people confused Nolan's movies, the best depiction of a certain take on Batman (namely the focus on Bruce Wayne), with the entire Batman mythos from decades of comics. I believe this slightly jumbled some people's expectations for TDKR.

I love Batman as much as anyone. I think I understand the character pretty well. I grew up loving Batman: TAS. I haven't read nearly as many comics as most Bat fans, but I've read the major or most popular ones. That said, I always looked at Nolan's work as a certain interpretation of Batman. That's not to say it isn't pretty damn accurate with what the comics are about. But like I said in a previous post, this trilogy was always about encapsulating Bruce Wayne's story.

When people saw the trailer shot of Batman standing on a tall structure, overlooking the city (the shot from before he goes into the sewers to confront Bane), many thought it would be one of the final shots of the movie. Batman standing victorious with implications that he would continue to protect and serve Gotham as their Dark Knight. I'm not saying the trailer shot misled people or influenced their views. Rather, some of the comments about that shot channeled the desire people had for Bruce to stay as Batman because "he would never quit or retire".

I could go on and on about this, but it all comes down to a resistance to accept what the Nolan Batman trilogy was really about. And quite frankly, I don't understand how some people could have enjoyed BB and TDK so much since those films laid the groundwork for what TDKR wrapped up. Beautifully put. The first time Bruce comes back he's simply not ready. Alfred points this out to him. A friend of mine didn't like how Bruce made stupid decisions because "he would never do that". I think he missed the point that he made stupid decisions precisely because he was out of the game for so long, lost in his own depression, grief, guilt, and isolation. He lost touch with what made him fearful, what guided him, what defined his remote limits. People who weren't strictly attached and limited to a very specific definition or idealistic expectation of Batman were able to appreciate and understand things like you mentioned. And these aspects made Bruce's arc so much more powerful.

I've rambled enough for now. I'm just so damn happy that we can now talk more about why we loved the film and what was great about it.

This is a great post and I couldn't agree more.

One of the things that a lot people forget, or just choose to ignore, is the fact that Nolan set Batman in a realistic type world. This is the idea that was created in Batman Begins and followed though into The Dark Knight. So how could any man, even Bruce Wayne, be Batman forever in a realistic type world? There's no way he could and making him choose to be Batman forever would have been the biggest plot hole in the history of filmmaking.

I always get a kick out of the "Batman would never do that." line. Or "Alfred would never do that." line. Well, Batman retired in comics and Alfred left Bruce in the comics. Then the counter argument to that is, "THIS Alfred would never do that." Which makes no sense because they are admitting that they understand Nolan's interpretation of Alfred, but they can't get past his interpretation of Batman?

I also don't understand how people can love BB and TDK but hate TDKR. Everything was wrapped up and Bruce's story arch was told perfectly. I think it really comes down to people's expectations. I think that in the years between TDK and TDKR some people built up a story in their minds and when they story didn't jive with what we got they were unhappy.

I remember my biggest complaint about TDK was that we wanted to quit. Sitting in the theater during my first viewing of TDKR made me realize how wrong I was. That scene where we see Bruce for the first time was what did it. I saw what being Batman had done to him. Bruce didn't lose everything when Alfred left and his money was taken away. He had already lost everything. He was a broken man even before he faced Bane the first time. I knew at the moment that he would never be Batman forever and I didn't want him to be. I knew he would rise up and save Gotham, but then I wanted him to be happy. This line sums it up best:

Remember when you left Gotham? Before all this, before Batman? You were gone seven years. Seven years I waited, hoping that you wouldn't come back. Every year, I took a holiday. I went to Florence, there's this cafe, on the banks of the Arno. Every fine evening, I'd sit there and order a Fernet Branca. I had this fantasy, that I would look across the tables and I'd see you there, with a wife and maybe a couple of kids. You wouldn't say anything to me, nor me to you. But we'd both know that you'd made it, that you were happy. I never wanted you to come back to Gotham. I always knew there was nothing here for you, except pain and tragedy. And I wanted something more for you than that. I still do.

That's what I wanted for Bruce, that's what he got and that's why I love TDKR.

Realistic, the word, is pretty loaded nowadays. The moment you use it, there's a fairy chance you'll have a dozen rabid anons jump on you for it. I prefer to say plausible.

I think the biggest reason I love this film is because Bruce's arc is inspiring. I was also against Blake being a Robin-type figure until I saw the finished product.

I believe Alfred's tears were more because he failed his own code, or "rules" if you will. His hinted backstory leads me to believe that he places a lot of value on loyalty and devotion...and he failed in a pretty big way.

__________________
"For he had promised her that, when she first saw Tanelorn, she would be riding upon a dragon."

Both phases of Bruce's journey are essential (pre and post back breaking). The first phase is a hero rising from the ashes of a broken man. The second phase is a man rising from the ashes of a broken hero.

That's poetry.

__________________

A hero can be anyone.Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know that the world hadn't ended.

The feeling is mutual.
Yes, this is an excellent point. Almost every criticism I've read or heard from friends contains those words - "Batman would never do that." Well, he did. The entirety of TDK built up to those last few moments, when Batman realized he simply couldn't be the hero he wanted to be for Gotham. He decided his presence was only causing more problems, epitomized by the Joker's rise and Harvey's fall, and that the best he could do was to take the blame and preserve the mission Harvey had begun.

I've been listening to the soundtrack while sitting in traffic and having new epiphanies. It's happening a lot nowadays.

Anyways, I had another thought about this. Batman, by his very nature, is not the kind of hero who saves the world all by his lonesome. He works outside the law and bends the rules...but only so the police and lawyers can do their job. In BB, he gives Rachel what the DA's office need to prosecute Falcone. In TDK, he extradites Lao for Dent to take him to court. He doesn't give the notion that he decides how society should be run.

He's an enabler. He enables good people to do their job. That's why he retired after TDK. His job was done - with the legacy of Dent intact, the Dent Act would give the police power to clean up the streets.

The only time he needed to step in and save Gotham all by his lonesome were from things that could be thought of as "his fault." The LOS coming in, as well as Joker's rampage. In fact, the second time the LOS arrives is directly because of Bruce's actions in BB. The mobs were gone, the city was peaceful aside from the wayward slimy businessman (which really couldn't topple a city all by himself), so why did they return? Because Bruce killed Ra's in BB. (Or allowed him to die. Whichever. ) It was wholly a revenge scheme. Talia was too focused on revenge and honoring her father, to even consider whether Gotham was the same as it was in BB and deserved to be destroyed. IMO, it certainly is not, because Batman changed it for the better. She was going in with wholly selfish reasons.

Now, the social implications of Bruce quitting also indirectly helps Bane gather his army. Without Batman and a reason for living, Bruce throws his entire company behind the clean energy project (without even considering if it's what Gotham really NEEDS), and it fails. With no more money and no more motivation, he hides within Wayne Manor, while his foundation ceases to help the less fortunate. Other would-be philanthropists see what's happening, and hold their money back also. I mean let's be fair, Wayne is very prominent in Gotham society. If he generously donates, he's definitely inspiring other of his social standing to do the same. (IRL, look to Bill Gates inspiring Warren Buffett, and them inspiring other wealthy donors.)

Then look what happens in TDKR. A kid from the orphanage is found dead, probably because he pissed off Bane. He went there for work because the orphanage he grew up in no longer has the funds to keep him on. What was funding the orphanage? The Wayne Foundation. In this way, Bruce's inadvertent selfishness is partly his own undoing. The Dent Act also would make Gotham look like a police state to some, angering the lower class even more. All this happens because Batman meddled just a little too much into things, in society and in Bruce's life.

So then, what IS the point of Batman? If the mob is gone and the police/DA can do their job, there is no point. The LOS that might reform after TDKR will be a different League - one that wouldn't just destroy Gotham because it was on the agenda 10 years before. (And unless Talia or Bane have a child bent on revenge...again.) Batman's reason for existing died after he took the bomb away from the city, which is why killing off Batman after that moment was so poignant. Without Batman and the trouble he brings, the people have a chance to rebuild it the way they see fit. "You don't need me anymore. Go off and do what you know best." At the end of TDKR, Bruce finally accepts this, instead of needing to be the hero.

All this still depends on whether Blake has the sense not to make the same mistakes Bruce did and gaining more enemies in the process.

After watching TDKR, I gotta say...I don't see the need of TDKR going any other way such as giving a 'rise of the freaks' after Joker because it would, quite frankly, detract the idea of something good having to happen after the events of TDK. The Dent Act had to be created, Harvey Dent had to be a symbol of good...I don't see how or why a rise of freaks had to happen for the threequel. More and more I find what Nolan to have done in TDKR to be the best route; bringing the LoS back, even if it was more or less like a LoS 2.0, was necessary as well to end Bruce Wayne's story.

There's no reason for anyone to think that because the ACTUAL reason is spelled out in the movie:

Gordon: "We were in this together. Then you were gone"
Bruce: "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won"

Rachel never came into the Batman equation. If you're talking about why did he give up on life as Bruce Wayne, they do hammer the Rachel point home more than anything else on that score.

Alfred: "You hung up your cape and your cowl but you never moved on. You never went to find a life. To find someone"
Bruce: "Alfred, I did find someone"
Alfred: "I know, and you lost 'em. But that's all part of living. But you're not living. You're just waiting around hoping for things to go bad again"

And that line says a lot about how messed up Bruce's obsession with Rachel was. The truth is he didn't find someone, he fixated on someone he already knew, someone who in his mind represented the last pure untainted vestige of his childhood innocence before his parents murder. Not exactly the same thing as "finding" someone. His death wish undoubtedly stems in part from some misguided desire to be reunited with his "beloved" Rachel in death - the irony of course being that she didn't really love him.

Quote:

Alfred: "You used to talk about finishing. About a life beyond that awful cave"
Bruce: "Alfred, Rachel died knowing we had decided to be together. That was my life beyond the cave. I can't just move on. She didn't. She couldn't"

This scene always stuck out to me for the way Bruce comes off as this whiny child who's being told to go to bed and doesn't want to - and on top of that is told that Santa Claus does not exist. He's very emasculated in that scene, which is actually fitting with Nolan's decidedly non-Bat-God take on the character.

Quote:

Can't get more clear than that. Facts are facts. The energy project sounds like something he tried to bury himself in as an alternative to helping the city since he wasn't needed as Batman any more. When that fell through he just threw in the towel altogether.

I would agree the energy project feels like something he tried to fill the void in his life left by not being Batman - just as I would agree that his depression stemmed from equal parts being a warrior without a war, guilt from not handling the Joker situation better and no longer having the object of his unhealthy romantic obsession around to pine over.

This scene always stuck out to me for the way Bruce comes off as this whiny child who's being told to go to bed and doesn't want to - and on top of that is told that Santa Claus does not exist. He's very emasculated in that scene, which is actually fitting with Nolan's decidedly non-Bat-God take on the character.

I've come across people much more whiny than Bruce in that moment. But it's very much like telling a 4-year-old Bruce that Santa does not exist. It's a worldview that he held for a decade...

And that's really the biggest difference between Nolan's Batman and the BatGod of the comics. BatGod does not care about how his rage consumes him. He just uses it more to be more BatGod-ish. Nolan's Batman is very much human, flawed and a weak vessel for all the anger that is contained inside him. No person can contain so much rage for so long and not have it eat him up.

In TDK, Joker tells Batman that society will shun him when they don't need him anymore. This is partly true, but it's all because of Batman's own doing. In TDKR, we see that the mayor and Foley hate Batman, because he's the "SOB that killed Harvey Dent." It's not because he's a vigilante. In fact, many still view him as a heroic figure and are delighted at his return.

At the same time, Bruce has always acknowledged that Batman is not wanted by society. Not because of disgust like it is with leprosy (like Joker claims), but because a functional society can not, should not view Batman as acceptable. It is not Batman's job to be the police. He enables the police by working outside the law, but it's always been a fine balance over how much he allows himself to work outside the law.

So in killing off Batman, Bruce also frees Gotham from its obligation to hunt him 24/7. Even if it's always been a half-hearted effort, it's still effort that can be better used elsewhere. And he also frees Gotham from having to explain to the rest of society why they need him. Because they don't, not anymore.

So in killing off Batman, Bruce also frees Gotham from its obligation to hunt him 24/7. Even if it's always been a half-hearted effort, it's still effort that can be better used elsewhere. And he also frees Gotham from having to explain to the rest of society why they need him. Because they don't, not anymore.

So in killing off Batman, Bruce also frees Gotham from its obligation to hunt him 24/7.

Yes, on that note, I think Bruce was glad that by disappearing as Batman for those eight years. That meant taking some burden off Gordon, who would have been obligated to hunt him. I think Nolan felt for Gordon that way and subconsciously made Foley the one who took charge of the hunt in Rises.

__________________

A hero can be anyone.Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know that the world hadn't ended.

In TDK, Joker tells Batman that society will shun him when they don't need him anymore. This is partly true, but it's all because of Batman's own doing. In TDKR, we see that the mayor and Foley hate Batman, because he's the "SOB that killed Harvey Dent." It's not because he's a vigilante. In fact, many still view him as a heroic figure and are delighted at his return.

I just wish there was something to show this on a more grand scale between Batman's return and when Bane broke the Bat, such as a press conference from the mayor saying the GCPD will bring down the murderous Batman, or maybe to counteract the press conference, have some people say how much they need Batman.

I get the second hour and what not had to have some somber tone to it, so I didn't mind as much if the citizens didn't talk about Batman or wonder where he was, as we had enough during the scene changes between Gotham and the Pit, but while Bruce returned the first time as Batman, I think that's the biggest problem in TDKR in that the return isn't acknowledged enough. And even with the IMAX time restraint for TDKR, the film still had 30 seconds to spare and that could've been used properly.

In TDK, Joker tells Batman that society will shun him when they don't need him anymore. This is partly true, but it's all because of Batman's own doing. In TDKR, we see that the mayor and Foley hate Batman, because he's the "SOB that killed Harvey Dent." It's not because he's a vigilante. In fact, many still view him as a heroic figure and are delighted at his return.

At the same time, Bruce has always acknowledged that Batman is not wanted by society. Not because of disgust like it is with leprosy (like Joker claims), but because a functional society can not, should not view Batman as acceptable. It is not Batman's job to be the police. He enables the police by working outside the law, but it's always been a fine balance over how much he allows himself to work outside the law.

So in killing off Batman, Bruce also frees Gotham from its obligation to hunt him 24/7. Even if it's always been a half-hearted effort, it's still effort that can be better used elsewhere. And he also frees Gotham from having to explain to the rest of society why they need him. Because they don't, not anymore.

But they will need him again, and someone will be there to protect the city. This is why I love the ending of TDKR so much. It completely re-informed the theme of Batman Begins...that the Batman became a symbol, an icon, and legend that would be incorruptible and (factoring in the ideas of the LOS which were instilled in him) immortal.

The Blake character is one reason that many fans have rejected TDKR, but I do kind of embrace it. If you can accept that Chris Nolan's Batman series in NOT the comics, you can understand that this trilogy deserved a definitive ending for Bruce. He earned it, physically and emotionally, with a career that was pretty long for any man to endure (in reality). TDKR's ending is the perfect combo of "ambiguous" and "definitive", in that we don't really know what will happen in the future but we still know how our story ended.

__________________I'll be there... around every corner, in every empty room,as inevitable as your guilty conscience...

Finally, an acting nod for Bale in Rises. The guy deserves more credit for what he brought to this film.

When it came to the Academy Awards and Golden Globes, I felt they snubbed A LOT of film noms and acting noms. It's sad, because once those specific awards, well maybe more the Oscars, was the pinnacle of acclaimed filmmaking. To argue otherwise that any snubs were just not good enough is baffling as well.

But they will need him again, and someone will be there to protect the city. This is why I love the ending of TDKR so much. It completely re-informed the theme of Batman Begins...that the Batman became a symbol, an icon, and legend that would be incorruptible and (factoring in the ideas of the LOS which were instilled in him) immortal.

The Blake character is one reason that many fans have rejected TDKR, but I do kind of embrace it. If you can accept that Chris Nolan's Batman series in NOT the comics, you can understand that this trilogy deserved a definitive ending for Bruce. He earned it, physically and emotionally, with a career that was pretty long for any man to endure (in reality). TDKR's ending is the perfect combo of "ambiguous" and "definitive", in that we don't really know what will happen in the future but we still know how our story ended.

They might. They might not. But Bruce won't be there to force Batman on them whether they like it or not. That was one of the things that frustrated Alfred about Bruce, especially in TDKR, and you see parts of that in TDK. Bruce just assumes he knows better than anyone else.

Blake expressed better judgement on the amount of meddling someone like Batman should do.

So, I got The Dark Knight Rises on Bluray, and well, I really think the audio is kind of disorienting and a bit bad in places. I have the regular DVD too, and it's sound is great, but the Bluray is terrible. Anybody else have this problem?

So, I got The Dark Knight Rises on Bluray, and well, I really think the audio is kind of disorienting and a bit bad in places. I have the regular DVD too, and it's sound is great, but the Bluray is terrible. Anybody else have this problem?